MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2994963080 · doi:10.5539/ijef.v12n1p22

FTA: A Stumbling Bloc towards Global Free Trade

2019· article· en· W2994963080 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Qiong Wang

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Economics and Finance · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicGlobal trade and economics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStatus quoIncentiveInternational tradeFree trade agreementEconomicsFree tradeInternational economicsInternational free trade agreementMicroeconomicsMarket economy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper examines the impact of free trade areas (FTAs) on the world trading system. It uses a partial equilibrium framework among three countries where Cobb-Douglas utility function is applied. It is found that FTAs are primarily detrimental to multilateral trading system and are stumbling blocs to global free trade (GFT), whether in a symmetric or an asymmetric case. This conclusion is based, firstly, upon the findings that the utility of member countries in a FTA are higher than status quo, so they are interested in forming a FTA, and secondly, after forming a FTA, they don't have incentive to let the third country join in since their utility would be lowered. In addition, this paper shows that when there are two large countries and a small one, it is more profitable for one large country to form a FTA with the small one instead of the other large one.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.043

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0040.005
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.039
GPT teacher head0.226
Teacher spread0.187 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Economics and Finance→Same topicGlobal trade and economics→French-language works237,207→